Although from what I gather she isn't a practising Catholic - it was confirmed that she was christened, but no mention of First Holy Communion and Confirmation. So it might be that she was only catholic because that's where her parents chose to have her baptised. So this may not be a big decision.

She is reported as having said that she was "very proud of her religion" which would rather indicate that she was practising.

Although from what I gather she isn't a practising Catholic - it was confirmed that she was christened, but no mention of First Holy Communion and Confirmation. So it might be that she was only catholic because that's where her parents chose to have her baptised. So this may not be a big decision.

She is reported as having said that she was "very proud of her religion" which would rather indicate that she was practising.

Not necessarily Iain; however, she is still a Chrisitan. Catholicism and Anglican are two different denominations . Same religion yet slightly different. Now if she changed to Buddhism then some would deem her a hypocrite noting her past claim that she's proud of her religion yet she changes to another one so vastly different.

I think her decision is shameful. It strikes me that she's not terribly religious to begin with, or she would not have so (seemingly) casually thrown aside her religious heritage.

I think it's inappropriate to judge motivations without knowing any background. It's possible that she isn't particularly religious, and it's also possible that she's making a major sacrifice in order to put her family first. Many of us have experience, either personally or with friends or family members, of the problems that can be caused by a marriage between people of different religions, espcially when it comes to deciding on the religion of any children born to the marriage.

Quote:

Again, the ugly Act of Settlement rears its head again. If she were Presbyterian, Zoroasterian, Buddhist, etc., it wouldn't have mattered at all.

Well, in practical terms it doesn't matter anyway because Peter Phillips is so far down the line of succession that it won't make any difference. I agree with you that the Act of Settlement is discriminatory, but it's not as though he was heir to the throne or anything.

Quote:

And for those who are "ostracized" within the Royal Family because of their different faith -- what a disgrace. I expect more out of a family that once prided itself on ruling an empire on which the sun never sat, and which was populated by a majority of non-Anglicans.

Who, exactly, is ostracised? As far as I remember, the Duchess of Kent was always welcomed as part of the family, even after her conversion; she herself chose to withdraw from royal life for personal reasons. The general feeling about Princess Michael is that she's not liked by the senior royals because of being pushy and outspoken, not because of being Catholic.

I don't think the RF ostracise any members of the extended family because of their religion. After all a good part of the Kent branch are RC (the duchess, the Countess of St Andrews, Lord Downpatrick, Lord and Lady Nicholas Windsor, Princess Michael) yet they all still appear at the major family events.

As for being proud of her faith I think that was a statement by Mrs Kelly, not Autumn herself. I don't think she has spoken publically on the matter herself. Its quite possible that like many people she was christened in her faith by her parents choice and never considered the matter herself, essentially a non-practicing Catholic. Perhaps, after attending a number of C of E services with Peters family she came to a personal decision that the Anglican faith worked for her and it would be easier in the future for her and her husband and any future children to be of the same faith. Many other non-royal couples have made similar decisions.
Future title for Peter. I doubt it as it would appear to be out of fashion these days and out of step with down sizing the monarchy. The only way I could see it happening would be to give Anne a hereditary title like Duchess of Avondale or something like that. Peter would then get a courtesy title and eventually succeed to the non-royal dukedom.

According to at least one canon lawyer who blogged this news item today, it's not necessarily clear that from the perspective of Roman Catholic canon law that the renunciation is complete enough. At the very least, it's an interesting perspective, regardless of what it actually means practically.

My apologies to anyone who was offended or thought my stance on this whole issue is too rigid or judgmental...but I thought that a civil exchange of ideas was the whole point of this forum. My intent was nothing but. It's just that the bevy of princesses in this modern day who sidle up to the altar with an "easy" conversion to avoid controversy, fit in, etc. (other than the remarkable example of CP Maxima and a few others) is somewhat tiresome. I can only hope that Ms. Kelly's conversion was a sincere one.

Cheers!

__________________
"You can dance, you can jive, having the time of your life / See that girl, watch that scene, diggin' the dancing queen"

Interesting article, but I think what is important is what the C of E accepts in terms of formally joining the Anglican church and not what the RCC decides it needs to document that one had formally left that church.
Not a fan of the term conversion because of course Miss Kelly was and remains a Christian who has simply changed denominations. Its not as if she has converted from say from Buddhist faith to the Christian faith.

I really have lost all respect for her. I was very vocal in my admiration for her (as I understood it) joint Anglican/Catholic wedding as I saw her as a girl who was proud to stand by how she was raised and what she believed in. As it is, I don't see her "conversion" as representing a great new found love of the COE but as something more calculating ie keeping Peter's place in the line of succesion. Autumn, you are pathetic!

What difference is it going to make to them whether he's in the line of succession or not? It's not as though he's Charles's son. The members of the family who aren't in the line of succession are still invited to family gatherings, they're still recognised as family as far as the Queen is concerned, if children are raised Protestant they'll still be in the line of succession, and there's no income or status involved with being in the line of succession as the son of the Queen's daughter. I don't see why she'd do it for that reason. She isn't gaining anything.

I think it was her mother who said she was proud of her reglion. Ms. Kelly is probably one of many non practicing Catholics. She probably is very proud of her her heritage, but religion is not bound by that. She simply found a denomidation where she felt welcome and choose to join. Many people join different churches then they were raised in as adults. This would not have brought the momentum to change the Act of Settlement, he's only 11th in line.

According to at least one canon lawyer who blogged this news item today, it's not necessarily clear that from the perspective of Roman Catholic canon law that the renunciation is complete enough. At the very least, it's an interesting perspective, regardless of what it actually means practically.

Interesting, yes, b ut anyone who ever tried to leave the Catholic church knows that it is not so easy as the sacrament of baptism is considered binding forever. But then the important point here is what is the CoE's opinion about it? If the CoE accepts Autumn's change of belief then it's done, at least as long as the Act of Settlement is involved.

__________________'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.

I really have lost all respect for her. I was very vocal in my admiration for her (as I understood it) joint Anglican/Catholic wedding as I saw her as a girl who was proud to stand by how she was raised and what she believed in.

I don't think she could have been a practicing Catholic as, IMHO anyone who is active within their faith would never be pursuaded to dump it for any reason at all, let alone for convenience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by angela

As it is, I don't see her "conversion" as representing a great new found love of the COE but as something more calculating ie keeping Peter's place in the line of succesion.

If she was Christened a Roman Catholic but had never "practiced her faith", conversion would make it easier with regard to children etc. As to status, Peter Phillips will always be "The Queen's Grandson", become "The King's Nephew", and eventually "The King's First Cousin". That being the case, nothing is changed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pamk

Peter is in business - banking, I think - and a title would certainly add a lot of cache to his working life.

And, there is no way on earth that you could convince me that anyone doing business with him is ignorant of his lineage!

Quote:

Originally Posted by angela

Autumn, you are pathetic!

Unkind, and most probably untrue.

__________________MARG"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes

Good grief, the girl has decided to formally end her relationship with a church her parents signed her up for. Millions do it every year, it doesn't make her a bad person or pathetic. It shows she has a mind of her own.

Very few people who attend any of the various churches are, IMO, 'Christians in the true sense of the word', you only have to look at some of the comments on here!

Faith is a very personal matter. No one has a right to question anybody's decisions about this personal matter. I assume that Ms. Kelly has got her serious reasons for converting to another faith. I for one think that she shows respect to her husband's family traditions. I do not understand what the outrage is about.

Princess Máxima was a Catholic all her life and remained a Catholic after she got married with the Heir of the Throne. Is she disrespecting her husband's traditions? I don't think so!

I doubt Autums was a devout Catholic before. If she was, she wouldnt had converted to any other Christian Church few time before she gets married. She would have done it much before. IMO, she took that decision to please the Queen or because the present position of Peter Philips in Sucession is quite important to her (or them). But I doubt the cause of this change had anything to do with an intense search made by her to found the "right" Christian Church of Jesus I think the same about Marie Chevallier.

I really have lost all respect for her. I was very vocal in my admiration for her (as I understood it) joint Anglican/Catholic wedding as I saw her as a girl who was proud to stand by how she was raised and what she believed in. As it is, I don't see her "conversion" as representing a great new found love of the COE but as something more calculating ie keeping Peter's place in the line of succesion. Autumn, you are pathetic!

i highly doubt her beliefs have changed as the CoE and the Catholic church share many of the same beliefs.

I think it is unfair how Autumn is being personally attacked over a personal decision she made regarding which church she would belong too. Has anyone here actually talked to her to learn about her beliefs, her relationship with God, and her motives for changing churches (note she changed denominations, she didn't stop being a Christian)? No. Yes, it's a fact that by changing churches, her soon-to-be-husband will not lose his place in the line of succession, but that does not mean that was the only factor - or a factor at all - in her decision? Many fiances convert so that their family can grow in faith together at the same church. Many people convert because they feel they can grow more spiritually with another church. Autumn may have done a lot of soul searching, Scripture reading, praying, and talking with different church leaders before making the decision. I think we shouldn't be quick to judge her when we don't have all the facts before us. Or more so, why is she being judged period over this?